Your 2016 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/if-not-hillary-who-1114

the short answer is "whoever can raise a billion dollars from assholes"

@ggreenwald
American political culture, captured in a single headline

George W. Bush likes idea of Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton in 2016

t.co/gRwIGW5LpW

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-georgewbush-idUSKCN0IU1KC20141110?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

"There are some people that’ll say there’s no way I’m going to vote for somebody with that name. Of course if he were to run against Hillary Clinton then I think the name issue would somewhat dissipate and then people would pick which one would be the leader. But neither one of them has declared and I really don’t know if Jeb is going to run."

still speaks off of badly written cue cards in his brain

And yet, he probably read that quote and thought, "Nailed it!"

O'Hehir is back, on why Resistance Is Futile.

Nothing is to be done. Hillary Clinton cannot be remodeled as a politician or a policymaker at this stage of her career, beyond superficial questions of campaign branding, and is not foolish enough to try. The only plausible way she can lose the Democratic presidential nomination is if she decides not to run, or through the intervention of some unforeseen scandal or crisis. Sanders and Warren probably won’t run, and if they do they will lose. Progressive voters are at liberty to stay home or go Green or flirt with the half-appealing, half-crazy, libertarian jazz-dance stylings of Rand Paul, as they choose. But they can’t stop Hillary....

Where I come down, and it’s a painful landing, is all the way at acceptance, the final stage of the Kübler-Ross process. I honor the rage of people like Doug Henwood, and I sympathize with the ardent bargaining of Katrina vanden Heuvel. But it’s just not worth it. Self-described progressive pragmatists like Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington are right that it’s not worth trying to stop Hillary Clinton — but not because there is any reason to be optimistic about her presidency. (Yeah, I know: SCOTUS and abortion. Fine.) It’s not worth it because presidential elections in general are an irrelevant distraction from the long, hard struggle against money and power and entrenched dark forces that might someday, just maybe, return meaning to American politics — and the 2016 election is more irrelevant than most....

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/15/no_im_not_ready_for_hillary_but_heres_why_resistance_is_futile/

"Yeah, I know: SCOTUS and abortion."

This is always the most outrageous thing about this sort of attitude. I'd call it the pretense that the regulatory state doesn't exist, but it seems instead to be total ignorance of how government works, what it does, etc.

Btw, this thread: oh boy!

Surely you can muster more enthusiastic Hillary-cheerleading than that gabbs

I was expressing enthusiasm for the subject matter. There's no need to "cheerlead" for Hillary (nor any rival team to speak of), though Webb might create a little boomlet for himself if he takes a flyer. O'Malley might have a little appeal, but I have my doubts even he will chance a run. I can see him as Veep, but not sure Hillaryland will, even if he stands down.

My fun for now is with the other side's cattle call. More on that later.

I do hope Bernie runs, purely for the entertainment value. Not that he's Al Sharpton or anything.

More Gillibrand in the NYT today

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/us/politics/new-yorks-junior-senator-doggedly-refusing-to-play-the-part.html

She's a strong VP candidate at worst

― Multiple Miggs (dandydonweiner), Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:27 AM (11 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Big Fan

why a Bernie Sanders candidacy would not accomplish a single solitary thing

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/no_bernie_sanders_should_not_run_for_president_why_his_challenge_would_achieve_little/

― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:34 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is a strange argument for you of all people to accept

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:31 PM (5 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not at all. It's classic Morbsism, which isn''t that different from any other defensively minoritarian counterculture. Accepting even for hypothetical purposes the possibility of winning requires this approach to a) confront the greys and complexities of actual power/responsibility/governance, and b) acknowledge just how marginal is in fact their worldview - they can't win because the fix is in, not because there really aren't enough people out there who agree with them.

she's awful

xpost

you guys can't seriously think that's gabbneb

"entertainment value," all that's left til we destroy the duopoly p much

not because there really aren't enough people out there who agree with them.

you mean the majority who saw no point in voting, mebbe

See what I mean? It's the Silent Majority.

you guys can't seriously think that's gabbneb

"entertainment value," all that's left til we destroy the duopoly p much

― things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:44 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Conclusion-drawing fail(s) again

I'm quite familiar with the VERY DARK greys and complexities of power/responsibility/governance that your sorry-ass party has been insisting are the only form of "reality" since the Third Way came along (and really since Jimmy Carter).

seriously, what do the Dems stand for, besides markets and the Dow? It's hard to paint people as "minoritarian" when they're unhappy with the Party of Nothing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jim-webb-exploratory-committee-2016

I had zero idea this dip had presidential ambitions.

Well, he's got the "little Mitt Romney face on big Mitt Romney head" tumblr vote sewn up.

now fully qualified

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/

working hard to win my vote

I loved that "new car smell" line from Obama. I'm sure that didn't go over well chez Clinton.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3XuZ2ZfRwXs/VH93u1ye7VI/AAAAAAAAAys/GOUZ2yscvBc/s1600/hilary-goldman-sachs-1000%5B1%5D.jpg

yay.

From http://m.thenation.com/article/191457-how-many-ways-can-goldman-give

I posted this on my fb.. READY FOR HILLARY

MoveOn is on the case:

The results are in—with 81.3% of all votes cast in favor, MoveOn members overwhelmingly agree that it's time we urged Senator Elizabeth Warren to enter the race for president.

Elsewhere, that Nation issue is a "Not So Fast Hillary" themed one:

http://www.thenation.com/article/191497/wanted-challenge-clinton

http://www.thenation.com/article/191521/hawk-named-hillary

http://www.thenation.com/article/191529/how-david-brock-built-empire-put-hillary-white-house

With Hillary we would acquire the potent symbol of a-woman-president, but not the potent benefits of a-progressive-president. however, given the political realities of a republican congress, symbolic progress may be about the only progress within reach. I don't think warren has enough of a national presence to be able to ride a popular groundswell into national office.

She only beat fucking Scott Brown in Massachusetts by 7 points. A national candidate she is not, at least for 2016.

can someone walk me thru a political calculus on which backing hillary against rando horrorshow republicans is sensible enough, but having to choose between dynastic heirs in a hillary/jeb election drives one into backing dark horse democrats, etc?

too far to walk

not really getting why one scenario is more sickmaking than the other tho

yes that's why i'm asking, they don't seem to be too far apart. but something about TWO political dynasty candidates is just… like a last straw.

latest in a series (I meant with Jeb vs Rand -- Rand not gonna happen tho -- as the red candidate)

for those who don't follow him:

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/544869679609942016

I feel like Jeb could just be an anti Hillary mutually assured destruction grenade. Voters might finally revolt if their choices were Clinton and Bush again and some other gop lunatic could sneak in against whoever took Hillary's spot and they could maybe barely win.. I dunno maybe Im thinking too hard about it.

this country's always had political dynasties. albeit not opposing ones that swapped the white house quite this much, which is p nauseating

climate change might make one of them the House of Atreides

both clans obviously Harkonnens come on now

ok (i hate that book)

never finished it myself

George P Bush and Chelsea would probably look cool in latexy scifi costumes tho

yet more torture porn for a country sick of it

to be fair to hrc she's not technically part of a dynasty, there's no real comparison between a ridiculously ambitious power couple and a political family that now stretches five generations.

like chelsea has said she's got no interest in taking political office while george p is already setting the groundwork to be texas governor and inevitably future presidential candidate.

still, the optics do look terrible

Chelsea is totally going to run for office gimme a break

not any time soon, granted

the bushes are actually one of the few major u.s. political dynasties i can think of, in recent history at least

They've definitely surpassed the Longs of Louisiana.

Landrieus
Nunns
Rufus T Fireflys